from the corruption-laundering dept

We recently wrote about how Kim Dotcom has retained famed human rights lawyer Robert Amsterdam to explore whether or not there's a human rights angle to his case, specifically alleging "contract prosecution" by the entertainment industry. I'm still somewhat skeptical that such an argument could go anywhere, but Amsterdam himself has put up a rather detailed blog post, explaining why he's taking the case, which may seem quite different than his usual fare: taking on corruption and human rights violations in far flung parts of the world, including Africa and Latin America. After highlighting the many problems with the case (and the continued failures in court to date), as well as the close ties prosecutor Neil MacBride has with big copyright holders, he points out that he sees some serious similarities to what's happening here with the kind of corruption he's witnessed in third world nations.

This case highlights not only the issue of “state capture” by the Hollywood lobby, but at the same time should lead to a thoughtful discussion on how we define corruption. No one would venture to allege that there is any form of cash payment taking place when official bodies appear to act at the behest of special interests motives. Because that’s not how these groups work.

It is a demonstration of the growing ambiguity of the lines between regulators and the regulated, and the proper role of intellectual property in the digital age. As we’ve seen in the sad and tragic case of Aaron Swartz, for whom Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz was seeking 13 criminal charges and more than 50 years in jail, the American justice system is increasingly flawed by this prosecutorial exuberance aimed at future political reward.

It is one thing when the victims of these abuses are American citizens, who live at the whim of an unaccountable prosecutorial machine driven by personal political ambitions and an appetite for headlines. It is something else entirely when these prosecutors visit their ambitions upon foreign citizens, charging them with heinous crimes with no basis under law, even if that person has never once set foot inside the United States (like Kim Dotcom).

That is, he appears to be aware of the nature of corruption laundering that's going on -- using the close connection between big businesses and governments to create laws where people can make the case that cracking down on some behavior is necessary to stop crime, but where the details show it's really about cracking down on competition and innovation.

And, he notes, this sort of activity is a huge stain on the US and the federal government:

With this attempt to “colonize” the global internet under U.S. laws, Washington is quickly making a bad name for itself, and putting its considerable influence on the wrong side of digital rights, free markets, and competitive innovation. They do this in the name of protecting a broken business model, subsidizing monopolies, and seeking to destroy crucial online functions instead of adapting to the incredible opportunity afforded to them through mass connectivity. We deserve better, we can do better, and everyone can benefit from a more reasonable approach focused on the best interests of the public, not the best interests of lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets.

We see this as a grand ideological debate with far-reaching implications, and sadly, my lengthy experience in countries where special interests control the levers of power may have some utility here.

Even if there isn't a legal human rights angle, it should be interesting to see what Amsterdam turns up. This growing recognition of how laws are created to benefit legacy players, and then used against innovators, is a real problem. Shining more light on that would be tremendously helpful in actually promoting important innovations.

Reader Comments

At least he seems to have a very clear understanding about how the governments around the world try to hide their corruption and pass it off as in the interests of the country. I wonder if his voice will be heard by the court or if the corrupted will shut him down before he even starts.

Re:

Depends on which court you mean. US courts, hell no.
NZ or international human rights courts on the other hand? seems a lot more likely. Ofc, any decision against the US would be trumpeted as foreigners trying to undermine our democratically elected by god legislators and met with overwhelming hostility
(see the bullshit fox news & the right trumped up about election observers for an example.)

more importantly, showing how certain people want to be in charge of things they are not entitled to, the lengths they will go to to try to obtain it and the assistance that is given because they mix in the 'right circles'!

Systemic Corruption

Maybe I'm alone but I don't think the human rights abodes gets to the root of the problem. Chris Dodd is a red herring here. He's just a Patsy.

Why in the world would anyone want to take down Kim?

The answer is surprisingly simple... He was competition. The system allows for the one with the greatest assets to use them against their enemies. Steve Jobs supported sharing when he had no power. Now that Apple is miner one, he ruled as a dictator, exploiting labor in third world countries, fostering horrible management practices on employees, and creating a company that is now worse than Microsoft in the 90s.

He was willing to use patent law against Palm just to keep his advantage over them in a classic Prisoner's dilemma that any person should recognize. And just to add more, Steve Jobs also told Obama that he wasn't going to move manufacturing jobs into the US. Honestly, how do you tell our sitting president, one of the supposedly most powerful people in the world, that you aren't going to do what's on the best interests of the nation? The only logical reason would be that you take orders from someone other than the public.

I think the problem here is not the corruption, or even the human rights abuses. That's just a symptom.

The problem is with capitalism. You have a system that exploits workers, artists, politicians, and anyone weaker to create vast amounts of wealth for a select few people.

Workers get very low wages for their work in movies. Artists get screwed out of millions through the Performance Rights Organizations, one-sided contacts, vast amount of licenses to acquire and destruction of their venues. The politicians give these rich people vast amount of incentives for lower wage jobs just to get money for re-election. And the public gets screwed because they aren't focused on the vast amount of pressures that only affects them in passing.

It's incredible that as you connect the dots, you see that our system allows a small people to get very rich by breaking a ton of ethics rules. The only way to really fix it would be to recognize what Iceland did and follow its example in punishing those at the top who got there through dubious means.

Re: Systemic Corruption

Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

no, i've heard unions is communistical and evil, so it must be so...
having a counterforce to the unrestrained kapitalist piggies will just make our bankster overlords, well, antsy, so we don't want to upset them, now do we, no, i didn't think so...

Re: Systemic Corruption

"You have a system that exploits workers, artists, politicians, and anyone weaker to create vast amounts of wealth for a select few people."

That sounds a lot more like communism/socialism to me. It seems to me that maybe the U.S. version of "capitalism" polluted by special interest corruption to the extent that it exhibits the same symptoms of those failed models.

Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

While must people make remarks about Communism, I find them highly lacking after studying the economic history of Russia from 1917 -1980.

The short version is this: Russia went from a defeated country to the second most powerful one in the worlds with just a focus on the macrolevel economics. In other words, it was a state capitalist society where the workers still were exploited by bureaucrats instead of private markets (think about if the government had all the power to create movies instead of Hollywood).

A true challenge to the system and the true Communism is actually going to be done with coops such as those in Austin, TX or VA.

Think about the potential that comes from more coops. You have local communities working on various projects such as local goods and services. Say that Google comes in to give fiber and a union keeps it updated and maintained through higher taxes on the businesses that stay in the area. You have less need to figures on job creation and can instead work on higher wages as the community sees fit.

The Communism that you're pointing to seems to be one that comes from those critical of other forms of markets but doesn't learn the lessons of what that truly means.

Re: Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

OK communism does work in small groups with a common idea and goal.. Thats proven in some cases and totally crashes in others. So I will be happy to agree that in theory you can extrapolate it a mass society (say state or country).

But the big thing you seem to gloss over in your love of Russian Communism is that the average "worker" or normal person it was an absolute failure at providing even the most basic needs (Food, Clothes, Heat, House)... and before you start ranting this was based on propaganda and false, I think I will point out I will trust the words of my Grandmother about life in Russia under the Communist over any rants other wise, and I will trust what I saw in Russia, Poland and Eastern Germany after the fall (about 2 months after everything finally stopped kicking). Crappy built buildings, crap cars, crap everything basically except the pieces owned by the "special" leaders...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

But the big thing you seem to gloss over in your love of Russian Communism is that the average "worker" or normal person it was an absolute failure at providing even the most basic needs (Food, Clothes, Heat, House)...

Actually it did provide some things. Education is a case in point. Even religious people who had good reason to fear and hate the communists will admit that the education system worked better in those days.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

OK communism does work in small groups with a common idea and goal.. Thats proven in some cases and totally crashes in others. So I will be happy to agree that in theory you can extrapolate it a mass society (say state or country).

Dude, with 400+ employees, Valve takes on and exceeds at almost everything they do far more than the hierarchical EA that has horrible customer relations, subpar games and digital distribution, and more support for the CEO than they do the games they produce. It's a company that is breaking the status quo left and right by just allowing people to work as they see fit.

But the big thing you seem to gloss over in your love of Russian Communism is that the average "worker" or normal person it was an absolute failure at providing even the most basic needs (Food, Clothes, Heat, House)... and before you start ranting this was based on propaganda and false, I think I will point out I will trust the words of my Grandmother about life in Russia under the Communist over any rants other wise, and I will trust what I saw in Russia, Poland and Eastern Germany after the fall (about 2 months after everything finally stopped kicking). Crappy built buildings, crap cars, crap everything basically except the pieces owned by the "special" leaders...

No, I just didn't want to get into all of the discussion about it and say that it went through a lot of wars, which made it incredibly good at gun making and industrialization. As I said, it didn't focus on the microlevel politics that freed the workers from exploitation. If you want the long version, just listen to this where Richard Wolff goes into the details of where Russia failed and why based on the economics.

Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

Re: Re: Systemic Corruption

Why do you always rant on Capitalism? Just curious to the seeds of this.

I'm doing a lot of study into the history of feudalism and capitalism and I'm beginning to understand that the systemic failures of capitalism rub off on everything else. When you look at how capitalism is the new mercantilism, how the rich use every incentive to keep their advantage and disrupt new businesses as well as how the government is rigged against the little guys... Well... You begin to see it as a failure of capitalism.

I searched to find the good parts of copyright. Yet, as more evidence comes out, copyright looks worse and worse. It's a part of the capitalist system and my own view is that it shouldn't be. Yet it seems to have continued to grow into a life of its own that deprives artists of income and keeps very rich labels and corporations in business over the artists that try their best to opt out of the system.

And as you say Capitalism is evil (even though everything is built upon it in some form or another), what is the fix?

I don't think capitalism is evil. I just think it's the root of the problems. Think about the large problems that are about to come down on the entire world economy that have yet to be fixed.

Corporations get a lot of power and they're run predominantly by rich people. And our debt is held by China with little investment in infrastructure and living wage jobs here in the US.

We have a judicial system that is two tier where Aaron Schwartz is judged harsher than Large banks while drug laws are used to the lives of our citizens.

I mean, I can go on and on, but the basic rule here is that the haves create rules for the have nots and that's a problem. So through all of my research, it seems that the problem is our system that is coveted by others.

what is the fix?

Well, that's where I currently want to research and hopefully make a book about. The fix is an upgraded democracy. It is a recognition of the problems we have and getting to the root causes of the issues and fixing them. For example, we don't need a two party system. We need to get rid of the Electoral college and promote the popular vote at the least. We need proportional representation in the House and Senate (maybe make it little larger in both the House and Senate so more people are represented through proportional voting)

And while I agree with Lessig that we should strike at the root, I don't think the root cause is money in politics. I think we need a recognition that our Constitution needs fixing every 20 years for each new generation and a lot more democracy to take away the plutocracy.

Getting that requires a lot more Aarons and Lessigs and others that are committed to a stronger public sphere than what is currently available. Being able to create classes for teaching, new business opportunities outside of McDonalds and new opportunities requires being able to change the world.

I just think it can be done by recognizing that democracy is the key to our future success.

Our legal system is designed intentionally to work in the interests of the entrenched corporations within our borders. Anything which begins to have a major impact outside of their controlled jurisdiction immediately sets off a red alarm, hence the raid on Kim Dotcom and the subsequent attack on all file-hosting services, the censorsing of The Promo Bay, etc. Even large, established sites such as YouTube have to play by their rules.

Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

FYI, you come off as reasonable AT TIMES then you flip out and go into batshit crazy mode in the bat of an eye when someone realizes you're going to start acting childish. You can't even deny this isn't true. Well, you can. But those of us who've been here for the past year know any denial on your part would be false. We've seen your idea of "debate".

Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

Oddly enough I went to wash my hands just before I read your comment. But it had nothing to do with slapping the troll. I'm a little OCD at times and I get urges to do certain things like wash my hands randomly (or wash my pens after other people touch them).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

Oh he does. JUST NOT WITH YOU. Because of your outrageous behavior. Time and time again he's tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and time and time again you start acting like a fuckwad/ill tempered and spoiled child.

So no, there's no reason for him to debate or discuss anything WITH YOU. Others are welcome though.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

He runs away every time as soon as he realizes he can't win. Hundreds of times he's actually bothered to talk with me, but then he runs away when he realizes he looks like an idiot. So the excuse that he doesn't want to talk to me is demonstrably false. He does talk to me quite frequently. But he always runs away when he looks like an idiot. Every time.

Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

And if Mike would have a frank and honest discussion on the merits, without avoiding the questions he doesn't want to answer and without running away like he has done hundreds of times before, then I might begin to respect him.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

I don't want to talk with people like you. I want to talk to Mike. It's his blog, I want him to stand behind his own words. I don't want to argue with his legion of idiots. Any time, any issue, let me know. I will be there, I won't run away.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I couldn't resist.

The fact that he's responded to you multiple times is fact enough that you're lying. Just because you cannot accept the answers given does not mean he hasn't answered you. Funny you call the people who post here most his 'legion of idiots,' considering you know nothing about that. This is just another clue as to the type of febrile ravings coming from you. A classic personality disorder that we really shouldn't even be taking the time to bother with.

Re: The only response that needs to be given

Re: The only response that needs to be given

And yet you can't link to any threads where Mike debates me and wins. Instead he always runs away. Any plac, any issue. I dare Mike to man up even once and to have an open and honest discussion with me. Seriously.

Re: Re: The only response that needs to be given

Have yet to find a comment where you actually replied to what he posted in a logical and comprehensible manner. Ignoring what was stated to you isn't debating. Ergo, you have not even begun a debate, let alone won one.

Re:

The DOJ has objected to a human rights attorney representing Kim DotCom. They have irrefutable proof that he is not human. Their evidence shows that Kim DotCom is actually a corruption machine designed to spread throughout the world through the Internet.

They cannot show anyone this evidence at this time because it could compromise their investigation. It is important everyone just accept it as fact and move on.

Free Marc Emery

"... prosecutors visit their ambitions upon foreign citizens, charging them with heinous crimes with no basis under law, even if that person has never once set foot inside the United States." Dotcom isn't the first to be treated this way. It's been going on for a long time. Free Marc Emery!